Are flawed. Do you all realize that the ability to walk a straight line, touch your nose with your eyes closed, recite the alphabet from a random starting point, etc., is all based on the AVERAGE. In other words, 1/2 the non-influenced, straight as a nail, citizens will fail the test while stone cold sober. Any one of us has a 50/50 chance of passing/failing it at any given moment of any given day.

The whole intoxication measurement system is tremendously flawed. Anyone with a prescription for just about any medication, mind-altering, mood altering, reflex altering, vision altering, etc., can legally drive on any road at any time.

'On April 24, 2004, the Liberal government introduced invasive new "drugged driving" laws that would allow cops to further persecute the marijuana community, despite science that shows pot can make drivers safer.' F U L L S T O R Y http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3415.html

Viewer discretion is advised as this article contains scenes of graphic violence and thought control.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20001001/tips/6.html

see also: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3961

Marijuana Induces Minimum Driving Impairment Compared to Alcohol, Toronto Study Says

*http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/primer-ncu.htm

What is suspicious in all of this is the call by Walters to promote testing as a panacea and it is just not so. Was there a public outcry for this testing that would be one hundredth of the outcry to reform the drug laws? There is already performance testing and probable cause should be because of errant driving. Improper equipment should not be probable cause for testing. The keywords are priorities and cost. Just what is this program going to cost and what will the real benefit be? It all seems lacking of a call to action and the real information of what the action will mean. Then there is the slippery slope.

This is a test of the media you are following. How many know that the record for the largest march on Washington was broken on Sunday when a million Americans stood up for women's rights to choose- http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16831

IMHO, one of the biggest problems prohibition has brought us... is that the cops are no longer seen as the friendly neighborhood peace officer.

Stop the WOD... bring back the PEACE OFFICERS...

What I DO have a problem with is selective testing of cannabis over more widely used prescription drugs. And of testing for cannabis metabolites... which doesn't test for CURRENT impairment.

I agree that all research has shown cannabis to have minimal impact on driving. But I wouldn't argue too loudly against such testing if they had to show reasonable suspicion of impairment first, and tested for current impairment.

But all that is too much to ask for the power hungry prohibs.

Everyone make a copy my findings ... they are accurate.

Some of those studies are online.

Australia: No Proof Cannabis Put Drivers At Risk (2001) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1849/a09.html

UK: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1161/a02.html

University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases\1999\03\990325110700.htm

Australia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n945/a08.html

Australia: Study Goes to Pot (1998) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n947/a06.html

What if someone is on a legal anti-depressant and feels a bit drowsy, or what if it's valium, codeine, morphine patch, Oxycontin, cannabis, etc...They are not the cause of ALL those accidents either.

It's just more repression and discrimination from our government. If most MP's at the Parliament are smart and sensitive enough, they will realize that this Bill is nonsense and it impedes on our privacy and it also discriminates on the sick (or) dying citizen that really need some of these drugs to improve their quality of life and survive a bit longer.

Peace,

National Post

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Marijuana. With legislation to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana pending in Parliament, the stridently anti-pot White House is issuing dire warnings about how Canada is undermining the U.S. "war on drugs." But Mr. Martin should make no apologies. Indeed, he should take the offensive, and urge the President to learn from Canada's more progressive approach. As Eric Schlosser eloquently argued on the op-ed page of yesterday's New York Times, America's draconian policy on marijuana is grossly out of proportion to the threat the drug poses.

DOT HS 808 939 “Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance” July 1999 Conclusion on page 39 midway of paragraph 5.1of the copy I received: The addition of the new data, (for marijuana), broadens the range of reactions that may be expected to occur in real life. This range has not been shown to extend into the area that can rightfully be regarded as dangerous or an obviously unacceptable threat to public safety.

DOT HS 809 020 “Visual Search and Urban City Driving under the Influence of Marijuana and Alcohol” March 2000: Conclusion 1 on page 24 of the copy I received. “Low doses of marijuana taken alone, did not impair city driving performance and did not diminish visual search frequency for traffic at intersections in this study.”

General Discussion on page 22. Previous on-the-road studies have also demonstrated that subjects are generally aware of the impairing properties of THC and try to compensate for the drug’s impairing properties by driving more carefully (Hansteen et al, 1976; Casswell, 1979; Peck et al, 1986; Robbe 1994).

DOT HS 809 642 “State of Knowledge of Drug Impaired Driving” Sept 2003: Experimental Research of Cannabis, page 41 midway: “The extensive studies by Robbe and O’Hanlon (1993), revealed that under the influence of Marijuana, drivers are aware of their impairment, and when experimental tasks allow it, they tend to actually decrease speed, avoid passing other cars, and reduce other risk-taking behaviors.”

DOT HS 808 065 “The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers” Oct. 1992 In discussing the “Distribution of Ratings on Driver Responsibility” Table 5.12 page 64 of the copy I received, paragraph (p.65); “Responsibility , drugs and alcohol, third paragraph, ”the following appears: “Note that the responsibility rates of the THC-only and cocaine-only groups are actually lower than that of the drugfree drivers. Although these results too are inconclusive, they give no suggestion of impairment in the two groups. The low responsibility rate for THC was reminiscent of that found in young males by Williams and colleagues (1986). This study is remarkable in it’s propensity to attack itself as inconclusive.

Forensic Science Review Vol. 14, Number One/Two, Jan 2002, surely must be the reference of note regarding metabolic functions and where the THC goes following ingestion. This review discuses THC and it’s metabolites; THCCOOH, 11-OH-THC to mention the most discussed. Location and type of measured quantities of these and other metabolites should be easy to use to determine if a driver is “stoned” or was stoned yesterday, or last week. Mention was made of a man who had measurable levels of metabolites sixty-seven days after ingesting Cannabis.

Chap IX paragraph D, “Summary” appears to be of two minds. While stating: “Studies examining Cannabis’ causal effect through responsibility analysis have more frequently indicated that THC alone did not increase accident risk …” it continues optimistically suggesting that further exhaustive research may rebut that.

All of the studies agree that Cannabis shouldn't be in combination with Alcohol ... a major deleterious effect on driving skills, as is benzoates with Cannabis … it rapidly becomes evident that Cannabis in combination with any number of other drugs is not to be desired, but that Cannabis and Cocaine alone in all six studies have the smallest perceived safety risk of all the drugs and drug combinations tested.